CHAPTER IV
RESULT AND DISCUSSION  
A.	Description of Data
In this chapter, the writer attempts to submit the data as outcome of research at MTs Darul Huda Pusat. This research is only directed to the students of second grade. To investigate students’ writing skill by using KWL in teaching descriptive text, the writer has taken the data by using pre-test and post-test. The result from both tests is used as data in this research. The writer has divided sample into two classes, 25 students of class VIII B as experimental class and 25 students of class VIII A as control class.
The writer has conducted the research about four weeks which consisted of pre-test on  of July, the first treatment at experiment and control class on of August, the second treatment at experiment and control class on of August, the third treatment at experiment and control class on of August the four treatment at experimental and control class on of August, and post-test implemented on of August.
The writer gives the reports concerning of the data description. She compares the achievement of pre-test and post-test, to know whether KWL is effective in teaching writing and then the writer makes table of student’s score. The writer get two data, the first data is the result of pre-test and the second data is the result of post-test. The result of post-test in experimental class is named variable (x) and the result of post-test in control class is named variable (y), the score is as follow:
1.	The score of pre-test and post-test of experimental class. 
The students’ score of VIII B as the experiment class get ∑ pre-test and ∑2051 post-test. The score of pre-test and post-test will be described in the following table:

Table 4.1
The Score of Pre-test and Experimental Class 
VIII B
NO	Initial name 	Content  	organization	grammar	vocabulary	Mechanic 	Score 	
1	AFM	24	14	16	15	3	72	
2	AHH	20	18	16	14	2	71	
3	A	20	15	18	10	2	65	
4	ANS	14	9	16	11	2	52	
5	CK	18	11	15	20	2	67	
6	DOP	25	18	11	16	3	73	
7	EK	23	15	16	15	3	72	
8	ED	19	17	13	18	2	69	
9	EFA	18	16	16	10	2	58	
10	FW	18	10	15	17	2	62	
11	FA	16	9	14	11	2	52	
12	HN	18	14	10	10	2	54	
13	HS	20	18	12	16	2	70	
14	HA	17	18	18	17	3	73	
15	IF	21	15	18	10	2	66	
16	IA	18	12	20	16	2	70	
17	MNW	17	19	18	13	2	69	
18	RR	22	15	16	15	2	71	
19	RA	20	16	18	12	2	70	
20	S	18	15	21	10	2	66	
21	SA	10	16	20	18	2	66	
22	YD	20	18	17	17	3	75	
23	YF	17	9	14	11	2	55	
24	SNI	20	18	16	17	2	72	
25	AKA	20	17	15	17	3	72	
							∑ = 1642	
							M1 = 65.68	

Table 4.2
The Score of Post-test and Experimental Class 
VIII B
NO	Initial name 	Content  	organization	grammar	vocabulary	Mechanic 	Score 	
1	AFM	25	20	20	21	4	90	
2	AHH	20	19	21	20	3	83	
3	A	19	20	20	20	4	83	
4	ANS	26	19	20	21	4	90	
5	CK	26	21	19	21	4	92	
6	DOP	28	20	20	22	5	95	
7	EK	23	19	21	20	3	86	
8	ED	22	16	16	15	3	72	
9	EFA	19	14	16	15	3	67	
10	FW	22	18	17	17	3	77	
11	FA	18	16	14	15	3	66	
12	HN	22	15	16	15	3	71	
13	HS	21	20	21	20	4	85	
14	HA	22	22	19	20	4	86	
15	IF	23	22	20	23	5	92	
16	IA	20	19	17	18	3	77	
17	MNW	20	18	20	20	4	81	
18	RR	20	20	21	20	4	84	
19	RA	18	19	17	17	3	74	
20	S	20	18	16	14	2	71	
21	SA	19	20	20	22	4	85	
22	YD	20	22	28	20	5	95	
23	YF	20	18	17	17	3	75	
24	SNI	25	20	21	20	4	89	
25	AKA	20	20	21	20	4	84	
							∑ = 2051	
							M1 = 82.04	

Mean by formula:
       Pre-test 	       Post-test	
M1 =       
M1 =       
      =      65.68	M1  =       
M1  =       
      =      82.04	

Note:
∑X1		: The score of pre-test experimental class
∑X2		: The score of post-test experimental class
M1	: Mean of pre-test and post-test experimental class
N		: Numbers of students of experimental class

The table 4.1 above showed the result of the students’ pre-test score and post-test score at experimental class. The data showed at pre-test the maximum score is 75 and the minimum score is 52. The student who got the maximum score is two students and the student who got the minimum score is two students. Whereas the data showed at post-test the maximum score is 95 and the minimum score is 66. The student who got the maximum score is two students and the student who got the minimum score is one student. The writer described the student’s score of pre-test and post-test of experimental class by the graphic as follow:

Graphic 4.1
The Score Pre-test and Post-test of Experimental class

Based on graphic above, it has showed that the result of experimental class get the significant improvement after giving treatment. It is seem from average score of post-test is better than the average score of pre-test that 65.68>82.04 It means that using KWL can improve students’ writing skill on descriptive text.
2.	The score of pre-test and post-test of control class. 
The students’ score of VIII A as the control class get ∑ 1442 pre-test and ∑1507 post-test. The score of pre-test and post-test will be described in the following table:

Table 4.3
The Score of Pre-test Control Class
VIII A
NO	Initial name 	Content  	organization	grammar	vocabulary	Mechanic 	Score 	
1	AM 	19	12	13	11	2	60	
2	DA	21	13	12	14	3	63	
3	DD	20	19	17	11	2	66	
4	DMJ	19	17	20	11	2	65	
5	HT	20	19	11	17	3	66	
6	INH	19	12	12	11	3	60	
7	IN	18	14	13	11	2	62	
8	IKN	19	13	12	13	2	61	
9	KLU	17	12	14	12	2	58	
10	LS	18	10	19	13	3	63	
11	LM	18	14	13	11	2	62	
12	MA	15	16	12	13	2	62	
13	MB	14	11	16	12	2	54	
14	MLA	17	13	11	14	2	61	
15	MA	18	11	12	14	2	58	
16	MH	20	15	16	12	3	79	
17	NW	17	15	13	14	2	63	
18	MC	21	18	11	17	2	66	
19	MY	16	10	16	10	2	54	
20	NS	14	10	10	16	2	52	
21	KA	20	18	11	17	2	64	
22	RD	13	7	7	5	2	34	
23	RA	17	13	10	8	2	50	
24	SM	16	14	10	10	2	52	
25	SI	18	14	11	12	2	58	
							∑ = 1442	
							M2 = 57.68	

Table 4.4
The Score of Post-test Control Class
VIII A
NO	Initial name 	Content  	organization	grammar	vocabulary	Mechanic 	Score 	
1	AM 	18	16	14	15	3	66	
2	DA	22	13	14	20	3	72	
3	DD	17	13	18	14	3	69	
4	DMJ	17	14	17	13	3	69	
5	HT	18	17	10	16	2	59	
6	INH	14	9	12	15	2	52	
7	IN	16	15	10	15	2	48	
8	IKN	20	15	17	10	3	65	
9	KLU	19	18	16	14	3	71	
10	LS	15	8	12	15	3	53	
11	LM	12	11	13	15	2	53	
12	MA	13	9	17	11	2	52	
13	MB	20	19	17	11	3	67	
14	MLA	19	17	18	13	2	65	
15	MA	20	18	16	14	3	71	
16	MH	22	22	21	23	4	91	
17	NW	22	19	19	19	4	84	
18	MC	23	23	11	21	4	91	
19	MY	18	20	14	18	3	71	
20	NS	18	17	13	18	2	68	
21	KA	17	18	17	10	2	64	
22	RD	13	7	7	5	2	34	
23	RA	22	20	19	20	3	84	
24	SM	16	10	11	11	2	55	
25	SI	21	20	20	20	4	84	
							∑ = 1502	
							M2 = 60.08	

Mean by formula:
Pre-test	Post-test	
M2  =  
M2 = 
      = 57.68	M2 =  
M2 =  
      = 60.08	

Note:
∑Y1		: The score of pre-test control class
∑Y2		: The score of post-test control class
M2		: Mean of pre-test and post-test control class
N		: Numbers of students of control class

The table 4.2 above showed the result of the students’ pre-test score and post-test score at control group. The data showed at pre-test the maximum score is 63 and the minimum score is 34. The student who got the maximum score is two students and the student who got the minimum score is one student. While the data showed at post-test the maximum score is 72 and the minimum score is 34. The student who got the maximum score is one student and the student who got the minimum score is one student. The writer described the student’s score of pre-test and post-test of control class by the graphic as follow:

Graphic 4.2
The Score Pre-test and Post-test of Control class

The graphic above has showed about the comparison between score of pre-test and post-test at control class. Based on the graphic above there is no significant improvement in the score of post-test and pre-test. It has showed that the result of control class did not have the significant improvement because there are some students who experience a decline in the score. It is seem from average score of post-test that is score of pre-test 57.68>60.08. This class also realized can effect improvement but lower than experimental class.

B.	Data Analysis
After getting the data from pre-test and post-test score of two classes then the writer analyzed it by using t-test formula with the degree of significant 5% and 1%, the writer used step as follows:

Table 4.5
The Comparison of Score Each of the Students of the Experiment Class and Control Class

NO	SCORE	X	Y			
							
1	90	66	7.96	5.92	63.36	35.04	
2	83	72	0.96	11.92	0.92	142.08	
3	83	69	0.96	8.92	0.92	79.56	
4	90	69	7.96	8.92	63.36	79.56	
5	92	59	9.96	1.08	99.20	1.16	
6	84	52	1.96	8.08	3.84	65.28	
7	86	48	3.96	12.08	15.68	145.92	
8	72	65	10.42	4.92	106.70	24.20	
9	67	71	15.04	11.08	226.20	122.76	
10	77	53	5.04	7.08	25.40	50.12	
11	66	53	16.04	7.08	257.28	50.12	
12	71	52	11.04	8.08	121.88	65.28	
13	85	67	2.96	6.92	8.76	47.88	
14	86	70	3.96	9.92	15.68	98.40	
15	92	69	9.96	8.92	99.20	79.56	
16	77	58	5.04	2.08	25.40	4.32	
17	81	34	1.04	26.08	1.08	680.16	
18	95	57	12.96	3.08	167.96	9.48	
19	74	70	8.04	9.92	64.64	98.40	
20	71	58	11.04	2.08	121.88	4.32	
21	85	68	2.96	7.92	8.76	62.72	
22	95	53	12.96	7.08	167.96	50.12	
23	75	56	7.04	4.08	49.56	16.64	
24	89	60	6.96	0.08	48.44	0.00	
25	84	53	1.96	7.08	3.84	50.12	
Total
Score	
2051	
1502	
178.18	
190.4	
1767.9	
2063.2	
Average	82.04	60.08	7.1272	7.616	70.716	82.528	
Note:
			= Score Post-test (Experimental Class)
		= Score Post-test (Control Class)
	X		= - M (Mean x)
	Y		=- M (Mean y)
		= the squared value of X
	= the squared value of Y
The data from table above presented into graphic, it has purpose to collect score between experiment and control class.
Graphic 4.3
The Score of Distribution Frequency

Based on the graphic above, the writer has seen that the comparison between experiment class ∑= 2051 and control class ∑= 1502 had different values. The experiment class is higher than control class. It is caused by the use of different method of experiment and control class as mentioned above that experiment class used KWL in teaching descriptive text technique and control class used explanatory method. For more detail, the writer has written this comparison in statically. 
From the table above, the writer get the data ∑
= 2051, ∑= 1502, ∑X2 = 1767.9 and ∑Y2 = 2063.2 whereas N1=25 and N2=25. After getting the data from pre-test and post-test, the writer analyzed it by using statistic calculation of t-test formula with the degree of significance 5% and 1% the formula as follow:
1.	Determine mean of variable 
 = 
		= 
= 82.04
2.	Determine mean of variable 
 = 
= 
	= 60.08
3.	Determine t-test

From the result of the calculation above, it is obtained that the value of  (t observation) is 4.47, after found the data the writer compared it with  (t table) both in degree significant 5% and 1%

4.	df  = +  – 2
	= 25 + 25 – 2
			= 48 – 2
			= 46

C.	Hypothesis Testing (t-test)
Data obtained from both pre-test and post-test are analysed and calculated using t-test formula. The data obtained from the experiment class and the control class is calculated with the assumption as follow:
If  : the alternative hypothesis ( is accepted and null hypothesis () is rejected. It means there is significant effect of using KWL in teaching descriptive text writing
If  < : the alternative hypothesis ( is rejected and null hypothesis () is accepted. It means there is no significant effect of using KWL in teaching descriptive text writing.
Based on assumption above, it is obtained that the value of is 4.47 and the degree freedom (df) is 46 in degree of significant 5% from t table is 1.67 while in degre of significant 1% from t table is 2.41. After get the data, the writer compared it with  (t table) both in degree significant 5% and 1% by formula:
 5% < 1% = 1.67 < > 2.41
 =  1.67 in degree of significant  5%
 = in degree of significant 1%
Since  score obtained from the result of calculating, so that the alternative hypothesis ( is accepted and the null () is rejected. It means there is significant effect of using KWL in teaching descriptive text writing.

D.	Data interpretation  
After analysing the pre-test and the post-test from two groups, experiment group and control group, the writer get the data of pre-test and post-test score. In the experiment class, the highest score of pre-test is 75 and the lowest score is 52. The highest score of post-test is 95 and the lowest score is 66. The mean of pre-test score obtained by students in this class is 65.68 and the mean of post-test is 82.04. The mean of pre-test and post-test score has improvement it seen 82.04  65.68. The improvement caused by the experimental class learns writing skill on descriptive text by using KWL that not used yet before. 
In the control class, the highest score of pre-test is 63 and the lowest score is 34. The highest score of post-test is 72 and the lowest score is 34. The mean of pre-test score obtained by students in this class is 57.68 and the mean of post-test is 60.08. This class also realized improvement but lower than experimental class, it seen from the mean that is 82.04 on experimental class and 60.08 on control class. It means experimental class gets significant improvement be higher than control class that is 82.04 > 60.08.
Then, the writer analysis using t-test after the data has obtained from both pre-test and post-test with the formula as follow:
If  : the alternative hypothesis ( is accepted and null hypothesis () is rejected. It means there is significant effect of using KWL in teaching descriptive text.
If  < : the alternative hypothesis ( is rejected and null hypothesis () is accepted. It means there is no significant effect of using KWL in teaching descriptive text writing.
According to the data, the value of to is bigger than .  = 4.47 > = 1.67 (5%) or  = 4.47 >  = 2.41 (1%), so Ho is rejected and Ha is accepted.
		Based on the data obtained from control and experimental class among the average scores and t observation, the writer summarizes that teaching descriptive text through KWL has significant effectiveness toward students’ writing skill. It has proved that KWL increase students’ writing skill on descriptive text. KWL is a classroom activity in which students from the text what the students wants to know and what students learn from the text.
		Hence, when the students have given the treatment in four meetings, they could be easy to write and understand the descriptive text in using KWL. Because they have helped by what they looked on KWL, when they had writing post-test, they could be easy to write the descriptive text by their own words. The students’ writing achievement improved in post-test. It can be seen in the main score which has been mentioned before. Moreover, in KWL in the classroom, the writer felt that the students could enjoy writing. They could actively involve in teaching and learning activity since the students could use their creativity and imaginary.
		From the explanation above, the writer gives conclusion that there is improvement students’ achievement before using KWL and KWL. The way could be seen after comparing the score pre-test (before using KWL) and post-test (after using KWL) in class VIII B as experiment class and VIII A as control class. It means that there is significant effect by using KWL in teaching descriptive text writing.